Almost one year after the Model Commercial Lease (MCL) suite of documents was launched, Tim Cooper, real estate counsel at Land Securities, examines how the documents have been received by the industry and reflects on his, mostly positive, experience with the MCL.
How has the MCL suite of documents been received by the property sector?
Generally it has been well received with support from various quarters, in particular many of the leading real estate law firms. It has been well publicised in the property press and one year after its official launch is being cited as a balanced lease. The launch itself was understated and to have got the traction and exposure it has received to date is testament to the quality of the product itself.
Feedback from landlord and tenant solicitors has been positive and where it has been used on transactions there is a noticeable drop in the number of amendments as against ‘traditional’ leases which tend to offer negotiation fall back positions.
What has been the degree of uptake?
Uptake among the wider commercial/institutional landlord community has taken time. From the outset it was acknowledged that the MCL was not going to be adopted unaltered by every landlord, and while it represents a fair position, it allows and accepts there needs to be flexibility to adopt it in whole or in part enabling landlords to keep their cherished positions wherever they want. Land Securities has adopted the MCL but there are certain areas where additional management or investment controls have been added to respond to the particular requirements of our portfolio. It is used not just on wholly owned assets, but also in joint ventures (JVs) without issue.
We have experienced in a number of instances when using a precedent other than the MCL, proposed amendments are lifted directly from the MCL. As a result it is being used as a touchstone where negotiating parties seek to agree a position, that view appears to be shared by other landlords and their advisors.
Since its launch the MCL committee has been expanded. The firms that are represented or were consulted during the drafting stage represent a large proportion of the landlords that grant the bulk of the commercial leases each year. Many of those firms have adopted the MCL as the basis for their precedent lease, or offer it as an alternative, with the result that a wide client base are, or will be, using the MCL. The MCL has also been used in educational and training environments, reaching a new audience. Tomorrow’s lawyers are becoming familiar with it even before they start at firms.
Has the MCL been effective in addressing the issues it sought to address?
The issues it set out to address were that both parties in a leasing transactions have different interests to uphold—landlords want to protect their assets, tenants need to carry out their business from the premises without undue interference. The two are not mutually exclusive. Agreeing a lease on terms both are happy with and in a timely manner is in both parties interests.
There were concerns from some quarters in the landlord community that it might be overly ‘tenant friendly’. It never set out to be that, but rather to achieve a position that all parties would be comfortable with, and recognised as a market-accepted position. This has reduced the number of points that are routinely settled, and allows parties to focus on the issues that are of genuine interest or concern.
The past year has seen a huge volume of property acquisitions and disposals. When Land Securities sold assets where the MCL or similar had been adopted there have been no issues arising from the form of lease—it does genuinely represent a commercially acceptable lease for the investment community.
Have there been any common issues with the MCL?
Feedback has been provided via the website and via those using the suite of documents. There are regular meetings of the committee to discuss points that have been raised and to decide on any actions. One year on, a round of updates are expected to be incorporated into the documents. These are as much to cover legislative changes (for example a change in the CDM regulations) as anything else. The committee has looked to simplify some of the provisions around alterations to try and simplify the definitions following user feedback. To call these ‘issues’ is perhaps misleading as any precedent will need to evolve. There are very few changes anticipated aside from those updates and immaterial linguistic amendments.
What’s next for the MCL?
The MCL will continue to be promoted and evolve. The committee has expanded and will continue to welcome feedback and give it due consideration. There are no immediate plans to expand the range of precedents available having already provided a broad suite of letting documents and additional clauses. An update for the underlying leases will be released imminently, but as mentioned this will be much more evolution than revolution.
There are other initiatives out there which are aimed at regularising interactions between landlords and tenants, for example the alienation protocol which Land Securities is looking at endorsing. Again, it should not be viewed as something ground-breaking, rather it sets out a clear and pragmatic approach to interacting with our customers.
Interviewed by Diana Bentley.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
Hardwick Legal Solicitors are delighted to announce that our new website goes live today. It provides information about our company and our full range of bespoke property law services which ensures that the client is put first.
We have specifically created some excellent photography from around the local area, which has complemented our new brand identity perfectly. The website also features a “News” section so stay tuned for regular news articles including development land, agricultural property, commercial property, telecommunications and infrastructure expertise areas.
Geoff Gilbert (Principal Solicitor) stated “I am so pleased with the final result. My re-brand experience has been fantastic and the website truly demonstrates my particular, bespoke style. The Amber Valley Media team have created something beyond my wildest expectations and I am truly excited about my website going out for everyone to see!”.
We plan to keep developing our website with new additions, so please do stay tuned but for now, we really do hope you enjoy the website as much as we do!
How transparent should letting agents be about income derived from their agency relationship with a landlord? Chris Haan, senior solicitor in the international and group claims department at Leigh Day, discusses his firm’s planned group action against Foxtons over hidden fees and charges.
What is the basis of this potential class action?
Leigh Day is looking to bring a group court case against Foxtons for landlords who have used Foxtons either just to let, or to both let and manage, their property. The aim of the case is to get a refund for what we claim are hidden fees and charges and for alleged overcharging for work done by contractors.Letting agents owe landlords fiduciary duties that include:
a duty not to make any profit or income from the agency relationship without the landlord’s fully informed consent; and
a duty of loyalty, such that the letting agent must not let their interests conflict with the interests of the landlord without the landlord’s fully informed consent.
The claim involves allegations that:
Foxtons takes commissions and fees from contractors (such as for repairs, cleaning and inventory and gas safety checks) without landlords’ informed consent—we have seen evidence that Foxtons takes a 25-33% mark-up on contractors’ fees;
Foxtons took various fees from tenants without the landlord’s informed consent—for example, it appears that Foxtons charges both landlords and tenants a fee of £420 including VAT for arranging a new tenancy agreement to be printed and signed (a total of £840 inc VAT);
Foxtons uses contractors who charge much more than the market rates, in breach of their duty to try to get a good deal for landlords; and
Foxtons’ above breaches of duty are of such seriousness that it should have to repay not just the fees it did not disclose, but also its primary agreed fees/commissions for letting and managing the landlord’s property.
We believe that most landlords who use Foxtons would have a good claim if they did not know about the hidden fees and commissions.
Although Foxtons’ standard contracts contain a provision that says they may retain any commissions paid by third parties, that clause does not appear to be drawn to the attention of landlords and it doesn’t say how often they are received or how large those commissions can be. We will argue that this is not sufficient disclosure of the commission charged on contractor’s work to enable a non-professional landlord to give fully informed consent. To comply with its duties Foxtons should have followed the guidance in industry codes of practice, such as the ‘Private Rented Sector Code’, which was drafted by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and is supported by the main industry players. That code states that an agent should disclose any commission they might receive at the time that estimates are provided to the landlord.
What leeway do estate agents have when charging for repairs to managed properties? Can agents profit from repairs?
There is nothing wrong with taking commissions from third-party contractors so long as the agent gets the landlord’s fully informed consent.
Is there any statutory guidance for such arrangements or is it simply down to contracts?
The dispute is mainly about principles of common law and equity. Are the terms of Foxtons’ standard contracts sufficient for it to establish that landlords have given fully-informed consent to the contractor commissions and the potential conflict of interest that arises? There is limited statutory guidance. The recently enacted Consumer Rights Act 2015 contains provisions requiring letting agents to be more transparent about their fees and to publish a list of their fees on their websites and at their premises. There is a fine for failing to do so.
What would it mean if Foxtons were found to have breached their legal duties in their practices?
Foxtons may be ordered to:
repay any commissions and fees taken without the landlords’ consent;
repay the difference between the inflated price charged for work and the market price;
forfeit some or all of their agreed fees and commissions that were taken with consent, if the breaches are considered to be sufficiently serious;
pay interest on the above amounts.
Interviewed by Diana Bentley.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
(Note: your browser may be set to play media files rather than download them. In that case please right click and select “Save As” in order to save the mp3 file.)
Video version with supporting slides:
Further Reading (linked items require a subscription to or free trial of LexisPSL):
What must landlords of statutory periodic tenancies that arose after 6 April 2007 do to comply with the tenancy deposit legislation?
The Deregulation Act 2015 (DA 2015) deals with an issue of concern that arose in Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues [2013] All ER (D) 135 (Jun). One of the outcomes of the case was that landlords who had taken tenancies prior to the tenancy deposit legislation coming into force in April 2007 – where the tenancies had subsequently become statutory periodic tenancies - were required to protect deposits and serve prescribed information on the tenancies becoming statutory periodic. DA 2015 provides a window of time for such landlord to comply if they have not already done so.
Any landlord who took a deposit before 6 April 2007 must protect it and serve the required information on a tenant within 90 days from the Royal Assent of DA 2015 on 26 March 2015 (or, if earlier, before the first day after the commencement date on which a court determines an application or decides an appeal under the Housing Act 2004, s 214 or the Housing Act 1988, s 21).
Assuming there are no court determinations, this would appear to make the deadline 24 June 2015, but landlords would be well-advised to take action now to avoid any hair-splitting arguments as to the exact time for compliance.
If that is done then it will be as if the deposit had always been protected and the prescribed information served.
Joanna Bhatia, solicitor in the Lexis®PSL Property team.
If you are a Client and we have made a contract with you by electronic means you may be entitled to use an EU online dispute resolution service to assist with any contractual dispute you may have with us.
This service can be found at ec.europa/consumers/odr
Our email address is glg@hardwicklegal.com.
Hardwick Legal Solicitors website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.